5 ms·

You draw a false dichotomy .. its now faster and cheaper to build out wind and solar than new nuclear fission SMRs. Most projections show slow linear growth in

by jgord 2y ago

You draw a false dichotomy .. its now faster and cheaper to build out wind and solar than new nuclear fission SMRs. Most projections show slow linear growth in fission power .. meanwhile exponential growth in Wind and Solar plants, which is what we need if we ever want to displace gas and coal power plants. If nuclear fission was such a safe and cheap form of power .. why did we build coal and gas power plants over the past 70 years ? If nuclear could have provided most of our power economically .. it would already be widespread and we wouldn't be a +1.5C today. If there were no Chernobyl nor Fukushima .. people might think nuclear was safe.

pfdietz 2y ago
> Most projections show slow linear growth in fission power Are these the same projections from places like the IEA that have renewable growth suddenly flattening (something they've hilariously been doing for years)? https://pv-magazine-usa.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/07/Tam11.png https://pv-magazine-usa.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/... I think a reasonable projection of fission is one of long term decline. Even in China the installed capacity curve for nuclear is flattening.
- mpweiher 2y ago
  Not true. Nuclear power output expected to break global records in 2025 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/24/nuclear-power-output-expected-to-break-global-records-in-2025 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/24/nuclear-... And that is before any of the turnaround past 2022 has had a chance to take effect. And the turnaround after 2022 has been massive. If you haven't significantly updated your priors since before 2022, you are vastly behind the times. 1. We already had the COP28 declaration to triple nuclear output. https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-decla... 2. France Until March 2023, expanding nuclear power in France (the "poster child" for nuclear) was actually prohibited by law. Absolute capacity was capped at current levels, and the law mandated a reduction to below 50% of total. This law was repealed in March of 2023. With something like a 75% majority, so overwhelming cross-party support. Which also largely explains why Flamanville was such a disaster. France knows how to build reactors quickly and cheaply: you build lots of the same design in an overlapping fashion, and you do it continuously, so you maintain the industrial capacity and workforce know-how. Flamanville was the exact opposite on all those counts. And the EPR is apparently a bad design. I mean, good once you have it, but way too complicated to build. Which is why it has been discontinued by the manufacturer. There will be no more EPRs, the successor EPR2 is vastly simplified. 3. UK While the anti-nuclear lobbyists "know" that Hinkley Point C proved the non-viability of nuclear beyond any doubt, the UK government apparently didn't get the memo. They announced plans to quadruple nuclear generating capacity in January 2024, so well after the HPC problems were well-known. 4. Poland Is getting into nuclear, in a big way. 2 Westinghouse AP-1000 (the Vogtle disaster) have been ordered, contracts are signed and site preparation work has commenced. That's just the tip of the iceberg, the paperwork for 2 more reactors from South Korea is apparently being finalized and there are a bunch of SMR projects, in part by private companies who want them to directly power industrial processes (process heat?) 5. Japan Was going to get out of nuclear. Now reactivating plants and will build new ones once the existing ones are activated. 6. USA Has identified the need for ~200GW of new nuclear capacity. Is currently figuring out how to create the industrial policy required to make that happen. 7. Netherlands Wanted to build 2 new reacts. Voted in early 2024 to build 4 instead. 8. Sweden Was getting out of nuclear. Now wants to build 10 new reactors. 9. China Tripling of capacity with just what is in the works now (20+ building, 70 planned). Currently accelerating the build out. 10. India On track for tripling of capacity by 2031. 11. South Korea Was getting out, now expanding. 12. Italy Got out of nuclear late 80s. Government policy is to have the legal framework for new nuclear in place by the end of this legislature. I can go on...and on, but I think you get the picture.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    I get the picture that lots of statements are being made. My belief is that these will not be turned into actions. The USA claim in particular is ridiculous, a nuclear bro fever dream that has no chance of having any bearing on reality.
    - mpweiher 2y ago
      No, it's not just "statements being made". It is laws being changed. It is money being made available. It is contracts being finalized. It is sites being designated and earth being moved. The problem with nuclear was never technical, it was always political. Technically, it's a slam-dunk. For example, the entire nuclear industry cost France € 228 billion. It produced 11000 TWh of electricity. That's cheap. 2.07 Ct/kWh cheap. And reliable. And clean. Quick, too, France converted their electricity to nuclear (and virtually no fossil fuels) in 15 years, from a standing start. And of course, all that action is accompanied by statements, yes. So the fact that the politics have now changed is significant, even if "renewable bros" find that hard to accept.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        Oh wow, politicians are saying things, so they must be true! /s My sweet summer child, you are in for a world of disappointment. We hear rosy plans like this all the time. They don't come true. In China, for example, nuclear construction has been way behind the statements, and this was before the latest massive reductions in PV and (particularly) storage costs. India has had a long history of all talk, little action on nuclear, and now PV is exploding there. In the US, generous federal subsides and loan guarantees were and are going unused. The problem is getting anyone to actually commit, and they don't because nuclear just doesn't make any financial sense.
        mpweiher 2y ago
        Once again: 1. There has been a lot more action than just "politicians saying things" 2. Politics was the only thing holding nuclear back. Thus the change in the politics is, obviously, significant. 3. Nuclear construction in China is ahead and accelerating. 4. India is not talking, they are building. The 2031 goal is stuff they are in the process of building. 5. Nuclear is cheap. France built its nuclear industry for € 228 billion and got 11000 TWh of electricity out of that. 2,07 Cents/kWh 6. Nuclear is not expensive, but it has been extremely risky, mostly because little to none has been built and also because the best plants are very large. We have now built some, so that's been a tremendous de-risking. For example, both Ukraine and Poland bought Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors. That's the reactor that just went online at Vogtle-3 and Vogtle-4. So are Ukraine and Poland nuts, buying into a design + company with this track record? Nope, because those plants have been built, so we know we can build them. And we also know what can go wrong, because pretty much everything did. And we know how to not do the things that went wrong. For example, one of the biggest drivers of delay and cost was the fact that Westinghouse started building before the plans were actually completely done. Problem is that that they had to submit those plans to the NRC before they started building. And then build to those plans. In theory, this process is a Good Thing™ because it allows a standardized design to be checked once and then built repeatedly, whereas previously the regulations were ad-hoc per construction, making each reactor a custom build, a one-off with no economies of scale. Alas, it turns out that the plans they submitted, due to not being complete, were not actually buildable as submitted. Oops. So they had to get almost 200 changes approved, and other times had to tear up stuff they had already built, and start again. We now have designs for the AP-1000 that are buildable. Because they have been built, Vogtle-3 and Vogtle-4 exist and are delivering power to the grid. We also built or are building a bunch of EPRs. There, one of the major problems (apart from FoaK and no experience in the industry) is that the design simply is difficult to build. So unlike the AP-1000, no more EPR orders. As a matter of fact, EDF has discontinued the EPR, and instead have created a vastly simplified design the EPR2. Which loses some capabilities, but should be dramatically simpler to build. So different things went wrong, and thus there are different corrective actions. Engineering.
cykros 2y ago
You just clarified your first two "If's" with your last one. Perception. Coal has killed far more people than nuclear ever has, despite the compounded blunders that led to Chernobyl and Fukushima (storing MOX on TOP of the reactors? Really?). Wind is a fine thing to build out as a supplemental power source, but it can never satisfy baseline needs, and isn't even putting a dent in replacing fossil fuels -- at best it is helping to marginally slow the expansion of fossil fuel reliance as we add more and more consumption of power with the advancement of technologies across the world. The anti-nuclear movement was heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry from the get-go, and their propaganda has been more successful than they could have dreamed of. But these perceptions are changing. Even Greta and her green minions are going pro-nuclear these days. It's a slow boat to turn, but there's a sign we might just turn this ship around to avert at least a portion of the looming energy crisis.

by jgord 2y ago

pfdietz 2y ago

> Most projections show slow linear growth in fission power Are these the same projections from places like the IEA that have renewable growth suddenly flattening (something they've hilariously been doing for years)? https://pv-magazine-usa.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/07/Tam11.png https://pv-magazine-usa.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/... I think a reasonable projection of fission is one of long term decline. Even in China the installed capacity curve for nuclear is flattening.

mpweiher 2y ago
Not true. Nuclear power output expected to break global records in 2025 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/24/nuclear-power-output-expected-to-break-global-records-in-2025 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/24/nuclear-... And that is before any of the turnaround past 2022 has had a chance to take effect. And the turnaround after 2022 has been massive. If you haven't significantly updated your priors since before 2022, you are vastly behind the times. 1. We already had the COP28 declaration to triple nuclear output. https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-decla... 2. France Until March 2023, expanding nuclear power in France (the "poster child" for nuclear) was actually prohibited by law. Absolute capacity was capped at current levels, and the law mandated a reduction to below 50% of total. This law was repealed in March of 2023. With something like a 75% majority, so overwhelming cross-party support. Which also largely explains why Flamanville was such a disaster. France knows how to build reactors quickly and cheaply: you build lots of the same design in an overlapping fashion, and you do it continuously, so you maintain the industrial capacity and workforce know-how. Flamanville was the exact opposite on all those counts. And the EPR is apparently a bad design. I mean, good once you have it, but way too complicated to build. Which is why it has been discontinued by the manufacturer. There will be no more EPRs, the successor EPR2 is vastly simplified. 3. UK While the anti-nuclear lobbyists "know" that Hinkley Point C proved the non-viability of nuclear beyond any doubt, the UK government apparently didn't get the memo. They announced plans to quadruple nuclear generating capacity in January 2024, so well after the HPC problems were well-known. 4. Poland Is getting into nuclear, in a big way. 2 Westinghouse AP-1000 (the Vogtle disaster) have been ordered, contracts are signed and site preparation work has commenced. That's just the tip of the iceberg, the paperwork for 2 more reactors from South Korea is apparently being finalized and there are a bunch of SMR projects, in part by private companies who want them to directly power industrial processes (process heat?) 5. Japan Was going to get out of nuclear. Now reactivating plants and will build new ones once the existing ones are activated. 6. USA Has identified the need for ~200GW of new nuclear capacity. Is currently figuring out how to create the industrial policy required to make that happen. 7. Netherlands Wanted to build 2 new reacts. Voted in early 2024 to build 4 instead. 8. Sweden Was getting out of nuclear. Now wants to build 10 new reactors. 9. China Tripling of capacity with just what is in the works now (20+ building, 70 planned). Currently accelerating the build out. 10. India On track for tripling of capacity by 2031. 11. South Korea Was getting out, now expanding. 12. Italy Got out of nuclear late 80s. Government policy is to have the legal framework for new nuclear in place by the end of this legislature. I can go on...and on, but I think you get the picture.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  I get the picture that lots of statements are being made. My belief is that these will not be turned into actions. The USA claim in particular is ridiculous, a nuclear bro fever dream that has no chance of having any bearing on reality.
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    No, it's not just "statements being made". It is laws being changed. It is money being made available. It is contracts being finalized. It is sites being designated and earth being moved. The problem with nuclear was never technical, it was always political. Technically, it's a slam-dunk. For example, the entire nuclear industry cost France € 228 billion. It produced 11000 TWh of electricity. That's cheap. 2.07 Ct/kWh cheap. And reliable. And clean. Quick, too, France converted their electricity to nuclear (and virtually no fossil fuels) in 15 years, from a standing start. And of course, all that action is accompanied by statements, yes. So the fact that the politics have now changed is significant, even if "renewable bros" find that hard to accept.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      Oh wow, politicians are saying things, so they must be true! /s My sweet summer child, you are in for a world of disappointment. We hear rosy plans like this all the time. They don't come true. In China, for example, nuclear construction has been way behind the statements, and this was before the latest massive reductions in PV and (particularly) storage costs. India has had a long history of all talk, little action on nuclear, and now PV is exploding there. In the US, generous federal subsides and loan guarantees were and are going unused. The problem is getting anyone to actually commit, and they don't because nuclear just doesn't make any financial sense.
      - mpweiher 2y ago
        Once again: 1. There has been a lot more action than just "politicians saying things" 2. Politics was the only thing holding nuclear back. Thus the change in the politics is, obviously, significant. 3. Nuclear construction in China is ahead and accelerating. 4. India is not talking, they are building. The 2031 goal is stuff they are in the process of building. 5. Nuclear is cheap. France built its nuclear industry for € 228 billion and got 11000 TWh of electricity out of that. 2,07 Cents/kWh 6. Nuclear is not expensive, but it has been extremely risky, mostly because little to none has been built and also because the best plants are very large. We have now built some, so that's been a tremendous de-risking. For example, both Ukraine and Poland bought Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors. That's the reactor that just went online at Vogtle-3 and Vogtle-4. So are Ukraine and Poland nuts, buying into a design + company with this track record? Nope, because those plants have been built, so we know we can build them. And we also know what can go wrong, because pretty much everything did. And we know how to not do the things that went wrong. For example, one of the biggest drivers of delay and cost was the fact that Westinghouse started building before the plans were actually completely done. Problem is that that they had to submit those plans to the NRC before they started building. And then build to those plans. In theory, this process is a Good Thing™ because it allows a standardized design to be checked once and then built repeatedly, whereas previously the regulations were ad-hoc per construction, making each reactor a custom build, a one-off with no economies of scale. Alas, it turns out that the plans they submitted, due to not being complete, were not actually buildable as submitted. Oops. So they had to get almost 200 changes approved, and other times had to tear up stuff they had already built, and start again. We now have designs for the AP-1000 that are buildable. Because they have been built, Vogtle-3 and Vogtle-4 exist and are delivering power to the grid. We also built or are building a bunch of EPRs. There, one of the major problems (apart from FoaK and no experience in the industry) is that the design simply is difficult to build. So unlike the AP-1000, no more EPR orders. As a matter of fact, EDF has discontinued the EPR, and instead have created a vastly simplified design the EPR2. Which loses some capabilities, but should be dramatically simpler to build. So different things went wrong, and thus there are different corrective actions. Engineering.

cykros 2y ago

You just clarified your first two "If's" with your last one. Perception. Coal has killed far more people than nuclear ever has, despite the compounded blunders that led to Chernobyl and Fukushima (storing MOX on TOP of the reactors? Really?). Wind is a fine thing to build out as a supplemental power source, but it can never satisfy baseline needs, and isn't even putting a dent in replacing fossil fuels -- at best it is helping to marginally slow the expansion of fossil fuel reliance as we add more and more consumption of power with the advancement of technologies across the world. The anti-nuclear movement was heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry from the get-go, and their propaganda has been more successful than they could have dreamed of. But these perceptions are changing. Even Greta and her green minions are going pro-nuclear these days. It's a slow boat to turn, but there's a sign we might just turn this ship around to avert at least a portion of the looming energy crisis.